posted
Could you define foolish for me, then? Because I also don't define that word in a way that makes your statement make sense to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:fool·ish /ˈfulɪʃ/ –adjective 1. resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech. 2. lacking forethought or caution. 3. trifling, insignificant, or paltry.
All definitions of the word seem to describe Coulter's using such a choice epithet to refer to Edwards in front of a large group of people.
[edited to fix foolish name conflation]
[ March 07, 2007, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Bush's comments after 911 about being in a "crusade" were foolish.
But I think Coulter is too much of a word-crafter for the first definition to apply. Or the second.
And the setting - at a high-powered event with Cheney and the leading Republican presidential contenders in attendance - pretty much tears the third definition.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the Squickster has the hots for blond female political commentators who make foolish statements. There is also Molly Ivans, Sqickster.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that is the primary motivation of most people who know me, heh. But I suspect he wants to say that Coulter has very cleverly appealed to the homophobe religious right at a grassroots level to get them hyped up against the libs....
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that he wants to say that Coulter is in the business of drawing attention and money to Coulter, and that the attention that she is receiving from this speech is exactly what she was hoping for. Or at least, that's what I would say.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They are entertainers. They are not policy makers and they are not think tanks. They get rewarded by the number of ears and eyeballs their words and antics attract - not by the effectiveness of their recommendations. Listening to either side's jesters for serious solutions is like listening to Ryan Seacrest.
I think they know it, too. That's why the Governator and Franken are willing to trade in the money of the entertainment world for the chance for a (relatively) low-paying government job - it is the people we ELECT who actually matter.
Maybe it's just the way you're wording it, but that strikes me as a somewhat naive position to take. All the things you've just mentioned, the lines between them have blurred considerably. Entertainers effect changes in policy these days. People who don't get elected throw money at the people who do get elected, and as a result their words can become law. You don't have to get elected to play a role in the process, or to have your hand in the pot at the end of that process.
Franken has enough money and name recognition that he can run without worrying that strings will be attached. The Governator can do nearly likewise. I think he's still a bit beholden to some people, but he's rich enough and well known enough to not really need their donations so much. He can afford to run on principles. The majority of our elected officials don't have that luxury.
Saying entertainers don't have a say in policy I think is wrong. Coulter plays a role. Colbert and Stewart play a role. They might not be writing laws and voting in the Capitol, but they are influencing the process, and helping to decide who gets in their to actually make those decisions.
Noeman -
Agreed. But I think it could go further than that, depending on how much credit you give Coulter. This is free publicity for her. But not just for her. She gets to rack up some more frequent bitchy miles, but all Republican candidates get a lot of free air time to denounce and repudiate her. They get a free chance to play up their more accepting qualities. It's free publicity for the Republicans, because no one needs to ask the Democrats how they feel on the matter. It fires up the people that agree with Coulter, gets her more screen time and also gets a bunch of free time on CNN and the like for the Republicans. It's quite clever. She lobbed them a softball.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched the clip, and I think it's sad how after she says what she says the audience goes, "Oooooh," as if she said something particularly incisive. I think it's pretty mild compared with some of the things Ann Coulter has said; it's just completely without satirical value.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
